RESOLVED: The Facts Support the Anti-Abortion Cause more than they do the Pro-Abortion Cause

COMMENT: Over the years, I have amassed a great deal of links and articles and such that I use to support my conclusions against keeping non therapeutic abortions legal.

I am assuming that I have a Nemesis on DDO somewhere who has done the same.

The ultimate goal of this debate is for myself and my nemesis to present our best data into the form of one of these debates. So that readers and visitors who are uncertain or undecided can view all of the data (in a kind of unique way) and to vote accordingly (or not) and then see where it all goes from there.

As the title suggests, this will be a debate about the so called facts that both sides use to support their claims. This debate will not be decided by the voters on who makes the best or more convincing arguments. It will be decided on who presents the most convincing REFERENCES (loosely called facts.) Those used to support either associated cause.

RULES:1. Each round requires a minimum of three links each to the references and or images used to support the participant's cause. (min. 3 links from Pro & min. 3 links from Con.) Quotes from the sources linked to are permitted and encouraged. As are relavent comments to give some perspective (also encouraged).

2. Arguments (if used) must be presented in the form of a question.

3. Rebuttals must also be presented in the form of a question.

STRUCTURE:1. First Round is for acceptance and opening comments from Con. Questions about the rules, definitions, structure, etc. are to be addressed in the comments section prior to the debate.

2. Second Round will primarily focus on the facts of when and how a human individuals life begins. (Individual Life begins at Conception ~ Pro Vs. Con ~ Individual Life does not begin at Conception.) Reminder; Rebuttals must be in the form of a question.

3. Third Round will primarily focus on the established facts pertaining to personhood. Again, rebuttals must be in the form of a question.

4. Fourth Round will primarily focus on Constitutionality and Legality of abortion and other related facts. Again, rebuttals must be in the form of a question.

5. Rebuttals only (no new links, facts or references) and once again the rebuttals must be in the form of a question.

I (Chuz Life) will be taking the position of PRO (anti-abortion) for this debate and my opponent will assume the role of Con (pro-abortion.)

DEFINITIONS:

FACTS: Facts for the purpose of this debate may include dictionary references, images, legal definitions and cites of law, quotes from the Constitution, Opinions of others (philosophers, experts, leaders, etc.) Anything that the contender believes will support their associated claims. Links are highly encouraged.

"In your example and in your opinion, if we both used the same sources, who would win?" ~ Bladerunner

That's where your ability to introduce the source, interpret it and to apply it to your cause comes into play. As I said in the challenge, "comments which give perspective are encouraged."

"You've said this debate will not be decided by the arguments, so the voters (in principle) should not be taking them into account. The source itself does not answer specifically (which is why we are both using it, one using the words as written one way, another another). Since the voters can't take our arguments (which have to be in the form of questions anyway) into account, where does that leave the debate?"

See above. The voters are asked to judge whether or not the sources (facts) provided by either side offer more support for the anti-abortion cause or for the pro-abortion cause. They are welcome to consider all arguments, comments etc. However, they are only asked to do so as necessary to determines which side is best supported by the facts.

"This debate will not be decided by the voters on who makes the best or more convincing arguments."
"It will be decided on who presents the most convincing REFERENCES (loosely called facts.)"

That makes this a source war, doesn't it? And doesn't it preclude the debate of the actual subject at hand, except in the form of questions?

In your example and in your opinion, if we both used the same sources, who would win? You've said this debate will not be decided by the arguments, so the voters (in principle) should not be taking them into account. The source itself does not answer specifically (which is why we are both using it, one using the words as written one way, another another). Since the voters can't take our arguments (which have to be in the form of questions anyway) into account, where does that leave the debate?

I do want to accept the challenge, but I got myself into this seeded debate tournament thing. Since the others in the tournament are counting on my participation, I do not want to jeopardize that participation since, first and foremost, it is a commitment which I need to honor for the sake of all involved. I'll hit you up for one of these when it's done, as this seems to be your seulement sujet d'int"r"t

"I guess it would help me to understand if you listed some individual fact that you felt "supported the anti-abortion cause more than the pro-abortion cause"? (Not that you're obliged to explain yourself to me, of course)" ~ Bladerunner

I don't think you understand the challenge, Blade. Both players could theroretically use some of the same references. And they would each be permitted to (even encouraged to) expound on them and to try to show how that definition or ??? supports their cause. Rebuttals would have to be in the form of a question.

So, for example, I might use the legal definition for personhood to try to show that a child in the womb meets the criteria and Con could use the very same definition and try to show that it doesn't. The 'philosophical interpretation' of the facts would be obvious in each of our accompanying comments and questions.

At the end, the voters will consider all of our sources and while taking our associated comments into consider.... determine which cause is most supported by the facts presented.

"As the title suggests, this will be a debate about the facts that both sides use to support their claims. This debate will not be a decided by the voters on who makes the best or more convincing arguments. It will be decided on who presents the most convincing REFERENCES to the facts used to support either cause."

In the end, both sides SHOULD be working off the exact same set of facts.

That section would seem to indicate that you intend for this debate to be entirely based on references, rather than arguments; then one side can "win", and establish that "the facts" support their position, which would be a misleading thing to conclude if, in the end, it comes down to a logical/philosophical/rhetorical difference.

I really do think I know where you're going with this in theory, but in practice I don't think this gets you there.

I guess it would help me to understand if you listed some individual fact that you felt "supported the anti-abortion cause more than the pro-abortion cause"? (Not that you're obliged to explain yourself to me, of course)

You said: " facts should not be in the "eye of the beholder". The interpretation of them, certainly. But the facts themselves should not be debatable. If they are debatable, they are not yet facts, they are opinions."

I agree

You added: " The reason that I don't like this debate's setup is that it includes a presumption that lots of sources are inherently a better thing, while discounting philosophical reason and argument entirely. "

There is no such presumption. And besides even Phiolosphical arguments can be based upon 'facts' that can be posted here and shared with others. As it says in the challenge both players can present a wide range of 'facts' used to support their cause. It can be anything from videos, images, definitions, cites and quotes, etc.

The example that you gave with your analogy is a debate that could very easily take place here. Just because a pro-slavery proponent could make the case that the facts (using your analogy) support slavery more than not? So what if he or she could prove it so? Would those who oppose slavery suddenly start supporting it? I don't think so.

It would be nice if 'the facts' presented in this debate would give people cause to revisit their conclusions. However, it's not an expectation that I have now or that I have ever intended.

@Chuz-Life:
Here is the breakdown, for me. I obviously don't speak for everyone who might take the position, but as no one has accepted it yet, I suspect some people may agree with me.

First: facts should not be in the "eye of the beholder". The interpretation of them, certainly. But the facts themselves should not be debatable. If they are debatable, they are not yet facts, they are opinions.

The reason that I don't like this debate's setup is that it includes a presumption that lots of sources are inherently a better thing, while discounting philosophical reason and argument entirely. I think I kind of get what you're going for, I just don't think this setup achieves it effectively.

I'm going to try to use an analogy here; I'll use an example I think we would both agree on.

Imagine a person were saying "The Facts Support the Pro-Slavery Cause more than they do the Anti-Slavery Cause". You could tell me the many quotes from the bible and from philosophers that support your position; but in the end, I would reject all of them, and none of them would be "facts". I would reject the philosophical positions without NEEDING any source to do so, and there are no actual "facts" which would justify the position; it would be the ARGUMENTS based on those facts (if legitimate) that would justify it, but those aren't factored into this debate structure.

The position that slavery is a good thing is one that we can easily refute without having to quote others' opinions on the subject. Without analysis of the argument, the claim that there's benefit to those opinions would be arguments from authority, anyway. In principle, one could "lose" this hypothetical debate I've posited, based on the rules you have established, even though I think we would both agree that the premise is ridiculous. I'm not trying to attack your position on abortion here, but I really feel that you've set up a debate that is meaningless at best and (I suppose inadvertently) disingenuous